Perhaps there is a simple solution, because I think Ralph has a point that these will be raised time and time again. I would like propose that there are name changes. Get rid of the contentious names, and no one will care if they are similar in function to collection classes...
-- Niclas On Aug 26, 2009 12:13 AM, "Greg Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: Here is another thing to consider. We have always considered Pivot to be, to some extent, what we think Sun should have done instead of JavaFX. In other words, if Sun was to create Swing right now, starting from scratch - what might it look like? We imagine that it might look a bit (or maybe a lot) like Pivot. We applied the same mentality to our collections. If Sun was to create the JDK collections right now, and do so in conjunction with a new user interface toolkit, what might they look like? Again, I think they might end up looking a lot like Pivot collections. We have tried very hard in Pivot to only re-invent things that are truly in need of re-inventing. While the JDK collections may not fall into that category on their own, when viewed from the perspective of someone who wants to use them as model classes, they do. They are simply not suitable for that purpose. So, rather than saddle ourselves with the limitations of the existing classes, we chose to start with a clean slate (as we did with our UI classes). I personally think the result is far more positive than negative. On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Todd Volkert wrote: >> Please review the FAQ for the reasons behin...
